New York

[machias]

The I-684 sign project that was just put out to bid had all CAPS/Boxed street names on the guide signs, but I exchanged email with R8 and they are changing the plans to comply with the MUTCD. I'd imagine they'd do the same with the Taconic project.

Do you know if they are planning to release the revised plans as an amendment before the letting date?

I doubt we'll see revised plans online. There's been a couple of projects in R2 where the signs installed in the field are correct but don't match what was ever shown online.

I did drop a line to R8 this morning about the boxed road names on the Taconic project. Hopefully they'll be corrected as well.

[J N Winkler]

Thanks for this--I've seen a few projects (from various other states) where revised sign panel detail sheets were made available before the letting date, but this is very hit-and-miss.

[D-Dey65]

This pic is of a beacon on the pole of a fire signal at the intersection of NY 112 and Gladiola Street in North Patchogue:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Fire_Light_@_NY_112-Gladiola_Street_Signal_(cropped).jpg

Do any other states do this? Because I was discussing it with some FDOT officials a long time ago, and they had no idea what I was talking about.

[steviep24]

This pic is of a beacon on the pole of a fire signal at the intersection of NY 112 and Gladiola Street in North Patchogue:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Fire_Light_@_NY_112-Gladiola_Street_Signal_(cropped).jpg

Do any other states do this? Because I was discussing it with some FDOT officials a long time ago, and they had no idea what I was talking about.

They have these in the Rochester area as well and have seen them in operation. They come on when the firehouse preempts the signal when they get a call.

Here's an example in Rochester/Gates
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.1428906,-77.7360596,3a,15y,41.68h,100.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM-rGqPmzWvnRR0hTtsxsOg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[cl94]

This pic is of a beacon on the pole of a fire signal at the intersection of NY 112 and Gladiola Street in North Patchogue:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Fire_Light_@_NY_112-Gladiola_Street_Signal_(cropped).jpg

Do any other states do this? Because I was discussing it with some FDOT officials a long time ago, and they had no idea what I was talking about.

New England states often have a similar beacon (typically red) that flashes when preemption is activated. Some parts of New York use them as well.

[SignBridge]

The MUTCD does allow for a special indication light to show that the signal is displaying in preemption mode. In New York, a blue light on the pole is common, in some places there is a white light on the horizontal mast-arm.

[froggie]

in some places there is a white light on the horizontal mast-arm.

This is the standard in Minnesota.  Though it should also be noted that some states don't allow such pre-emption.  Vermont and New Hampshire are two of them.

[cl94]

NY 63 in Dansville. Anyone else notice the little issue here?

[Great Lakes Roads]

NY 63 in Dansville. Anyone else notice the little issue here?

Um... South NY 36 and TO NY 36... it's supposed to be South NY 63 and TO NY 36... 

[SignBridge]

Why not hang the pedestrian signals on the main mast-pole and not have  to build 2 small posts with their additional wiring?

[vdeane]

I would assume it's so the push buttons can be closer to the sidewalk; too far would not be ADA compliant.

[SignBridge]

You might be right vdeane regarding ADA access. But other than that, it seems like a waste just to put the buttons maybe 3 feet closer to the sidewalk. I once saw a Nassau County installation where you had to step thru low bushes to access the pole with the buttons. LOL Interestingly, that location was recently rebuilt.

[Alps]

I would assume it's so the push buttons can be closer to the sidewalk; too far would not be ADA compliant.

There had to be a better solution in this situation. Why not locate the signal pole against the sidewalk, or close enough to use a PB extender? Why can't one of the poles have both sets of walk signals on it, and the other one can just be a stub conduit end?

[Michael]

A few years ago (2011 I think based on Googling), NYSDOT redid the pushbuttons and curb cuts along the Arterial and Grant Ave here in Auburn.  They added poles, so each pushbutton would have its own pole.  At the time, I did some Googling, and found this in Chapter 4E, Section 8 of the MUTCD:

Except as provided in Paragraph 8, where two pedestrian pushbuttons are provided on the same corner of a signalized location, the pushbuttons should be separated by a distance of at least 10 feet.

At the time, I assumed it was to provide the proper placement relative to the crosswalk and/or the required 10 foot separation.  In this Street View image, you can see where the old pushbutton was on the pole for the crosswalk signal.  On a newer install just up the street, one side has separate poles, but the other side doesn't.  Before the stoplight was replaced, the pushbuttons were moved from the stoplight pole (note the marks on the pole) to two separate poles, and one of those was reused.

[J N Winkler]

This surfaced in one of the road-related Facebook groups--it appears the BQE is being rehabilitated by NYCDOT rather than NYSDOT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/nyregion/dreaded-by-drivers-brooklyn-queens-expressway-is-set-for-repairs.html

It sounds like NYCDOT may have let the contract as well, but a quick check of its construction procurement site has not turned up a solicitation that corresponds to this project.  In any case, while NYCDOT now makes solicitation documents available online, the solicitation notices I have seen all say that plans (drawings) cannot be downloaded and must be purchased.

There was a NYSDOT construction project earlier this year (the D-number escapes me) involving the BQE and including a large selection of the original as-builts.

[cl94]

The BQE is a strange animal. While the public inventory states that everything is maintained by NYSDOT, I know NYCDOT has a decent amount of influence, more so than other Interstates in the city.

Would one of the NYSDOT employees on here be able to get into the intranet and actually see who is in charge of the BQE to settle this once and for all?

[vdeane]

The RIS GIS shapefiles say NYSDOT for owning jurisdiction, but I'm not sure how much I'd trust that with the complex relationship between Region 11 and NYCDOT.

[noelbotevera]

The BQE is a strange animal. While the public inventory states that everything is maintained by NYSDOT, I know NYCDOT has a decent amount of influence, more so than other Interstates in the city.

Would one of the NYSDOT employees on here be able to get into the intranet and actually see who is in charge of the BQE to settle this once and for all?

I was able to find region 11 projects in Queens. It appears that they do construct and repave the road (such as the Kosciuszko Bridge replacement, and the rehab of a bridge over 47th Street). I'm assuming that NYCDOT advises and oversees the construction, but NYSDOT does the actual construction.

Here's where I'm talking about.

[J N Winkler]

I did some more digging and it seems the recent burst of publicity has been triggered by the start of a design contract for BQE improvements which NYCDOT is supervising.  Construction is not imminent and is expected to begin in 2020 or 2021 depending on whether design-build or design-bid-build is chosen.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bqe-atlantic-to-sands-apr2016.pdf

I did figure the BQE was NYSDOT infrastructure, but that didn't necessarily mean anything one way or the other because states occasionally allow local entities to build for them through agreement--cases in point include Kellogg Avenue in Wichita (KDOT-owned, but bulk of the freeway expansion handled by the City of Wichita), Fort Washington Way in Cincinnati (Ohio DOT-owned, all construction handled by Cincinnati), I-83 in Baltimore, numerous examples in California handled by cities, counties, and MPOs, etc.

We can hope the construction documentation is easily accessible to us by the time a contract is actually let.  Right now access is easier through NYSDOT than NYCDOT, but in four years there may no longer be a difference.

I did dig up the recent NYSDOT contract I was thinking of:  D262963.  This turns out to be for emergency repairs on the Gowanus Expressway only (four miles south).  The supplemental information does include three of the original construction contracts, as well as a 2200-sheet rehabilitation job from 2009 (D261302).

I was able to find region 11 projects in Queens. It appears that they do construct and repave the road (such as the Kosciuszko Bridge replacement, and the rehab of a bridge over 47th Street). I'm assuming that NYCDOT advises and oversees the construction, but NYSDOT does the actual construction.

It looks like the biggest thing NYSDOT has advertised for construction in Region 11 in the past few months is D263208 (Phase 2B of the ongoing open-heart surgery at the Kew Gardens Interchange).

[cl94]

And that Kew Gardens work is sorely needed, even with the traffic issues it may be causing.

[The Ghostbuster]

Is there anything that can be done to improve the BQE in safety or design terms? Or is the BQE stuck the way it is for the rest of eternity?

[The Ghostbuster]

That's not the answer I was looking for. I was looking for a 'yes, they can do XYZ' or a 'no, they can't do anything' type of answer. I've never been to New York, so sorry if my posts sound "useless."

[cl94]

I doubt any major changes will ever occur short of the elevated portions being condemned, necessitating reconstruction. The issues with the Big Dig are still on the minds of people and that didn't happen all too far away and you'll never get away with tearing down one of the most expensive neighborhoods of the city to make it straighter.

[Alps]

Is there anything that can be done to improve the BQE in safety or design terms? Or is the BQE stuck the way it is for the rest of eternity?

Better shot at the viaduct sections. The depressed roadway is constrained, and so far NY hasn't thought outside the box in terms of digging under the service roads to add shoulders or even lanes. The K-bridge is of course going to be 9 lanes and thus much better than current in all facets, and the southern viaduct leading up to it can have shoulders added with cantilevers off the existing structure (or future replacement thereof). Not as familiar north of the LIE interchange but I know it returns to some depressed sections again, so what you can do is limited.

[SignBridge]

Alps, interesting you should mention about thinking outside the box and digging under the service road. NYC did exactly that back in 1963 when they widened the Grand Central Parkway between Main St. and 168th St. However that was a somewhat easier project as there was an embankment with trees separating the Parkway and the adjacent service roads. Unlike the BQE with its concrete walls in the depressed section. That I'm sure would be much more difficult and expensive in that densely packed urban area. Oh well; we can dream........